I do agree with those thesee. I think if you define relating this way you can’t at the same time define it as being a choice as the choice is a different ontological object. I took two years to try to figure out what the word relationship means and to me there’s now a certain clarity.
Nod. I updated the opening definition of “relate” to include both facets.
This is all a particular lens that was helpful to me that I’ve only shared with a couple people so far, and not sure how many people will relate(har har) to it.
But, fwiw, while I do see a qualitative difference between “chosen relating” and “un-chosen relating”, it doesn’t feel like so big a difference that that they are ontologically distinct.
It’s similar to, if I initially stub my toe and then feel angry at someone who happens to be nearby… and then I reflect a bit and decide that it doesn’t make sense to be angry at them (and instead an angry at the universe, or become tranquil instead of angry, or whatever), my post-reflective is different from my pre-reflective state in some important ways, but they still share major properties of “experiencing emotions.”
I see pre-and-post-reflected relating similarly. (I think reflected-relating is a bit more different from reflexive-relating than pre-and-post-reflected-emotions. But, not much more)
I see a choice as a type of intention. That choice has effects. The process of feeling certain emotions when interacting an entity with whom one relates is a downstream effect from that choice.
If I do believe reporting I start out with the intention: “I will tell the truth”. That’s a choice I’m making.
One effect of that choice is that I will relate a certain way to saying something part of me considers untrue. The downstream effect of the choice is that I will feel tension when saying an untruth.
I do agree that the relating that happens downstream from a conscious choice is of a similar nature then the relating that happens without setting a conscious intention but the relating is still another object then the choice.
I do agree with those thesee. I think if you define relating this way you can’t at the same time define it as being a choice as the choice is a different ontological object. I took two years to try to figure out what the word relationship means and to me there’s now a certain clarity.
Nod. I updated the opening definition of “relate” to include both facets.
This is all a particular lens that was helpful to me that I’ve only shared with a couple people so far, and not sure how many people will relate (har har) to it.
But, fwiw, while I do see a qualitative difference between “chosen relating” and “un-chosen relating”, it doesn’t feel like so big a difference that that they are ontologically distinct.
It’s similar to, if I initially stub my toe and then feel angry at someone who happens to be nearby… and then I reflect a bit and decide that it doesn’t make sense to be angry at them (and instead an angry at the universe, or become tranquil instead of angry, or whatever), my post-reflective is different from my pre-reflective state in some important ways, but they still share major properties of “experiencing emotions.”
I see pre-and-post-reflected relating similarly. (I think reflected-relating is a bit more different from reflexive-relating than pre-and-post-reflected-emotions. But, not much more)
I see a choice as a type of intention. That choice has effects. The process of feeling certain emotions when interacting an entity with whom one relates is a downstream effect from that choice.
If I do believe reporting I start out with the intention: “I will tell the truth”. That’s a choice I’m making.
One effect of that choice is that I will relate a certain way to saying something part of me considers untrue. The downstream effect of the choice is that I will feel tension when saying an untruth.
I do agree that the relating that happens downstream from a conscious choice is of a similar nature then the relating that happens without setting a conscious intention but the relating is still another object then the choice.
Okay, that makes sense. Do you have a good name for the choice part? (‘Relational choice’ might be fine)